1,709 words
Part 2 here
John Podhoretz
As I was scrolling through Gab the other day, I witnessed a remarkable little dig at the Jews. A well-known Dissident Right personality named John Rivers shared a tweet by Commentary Magazine editor John Podhorertz’s and commented, “look at this fucking Jew.”
Before I even had a chance to read J-Pod’s tweet, my normie instincts kicked in, and I thought to myself, “My, that was pretty nasty, wasn’t it?” Like many of us, I was neither born with the red pill, nor did I have it thrust upon me. Instead, I achieved it. With the blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims, it took only a few years after paying my own taxes for the first time. But for the Jewish Question, alas, it took decades. So after reading Rivers’ post, I reminded myself of all the ways such nastiness could be warranted.
The exchange began with Republican Representative Steve King of Iowa tweeting that “Diversity is not our strength” and sharing the following quote from Prime Minister Viktor Orbán: “Mixing cultures will not lead to a higher quality of life but a lower one.” Also shared was a Voice of Europe article which quotes Orbán further and expounds on his ideas.
And J-Pod’s response? “The Problem with a lack of diversity, Congressman, is that it tends to lead to inbreeding of the sort that creates monstrous dimwits like you.” So, yes, nastiness from Rivers was indeed warranted. Rivers’ barb was perfectly appropriate and, if anything, didn’t go far enough. J-Pod’s comments were so insidious and revealing that one can hurl such a barb from a multitude of vantage points and still hit home.
Let’s first talk about the racism angle. Was this tweet racist? By any benchmark used by the Left or cuck Right, the answer must be yes. John Podhoretz was basically calling Representative King an inbred hick like one of the white trash mountain people from the film Deliverance. The inbreeding stereotype for poor whites who live in rural areas still holds much power over the minds of educated people in this country, Jew and gentile alike. The term “inbreeding” can be seen as a sneering, racist code word which anti-white bigots like John Podhoretz use to belittle white people. Would Podhoretz have used the same term to describe a black or Hispanic who disagreed with him? Has anyone ever even done that? No, the inbreeding comment has historically only applied to white people and therefore must be construed as anti-white in nature.
Am I being too touchy here? Am I looking for racism where there isn’t any? After all, it’s not like Podhoretz called King a cracker, right? Yes, that’s true. However, searching for racism in code words is something Jews do all the time. Note that at various times throughout recent history, Jews have pointed to terms such as “cosmopolitan” and “globalist” as anti-Semitic code words. Most recently the term “intersectionality” has been added to this index of anti-Semitic shame. So why shouldn’t whites do the same when they get besmirched by people of other races?
And this leads us to our next angle: hypocrisy. It might sound hypocritical on my part for complaining about racism on a site like Counter-Currents, which deals much in race realism and isn’t exactly philo-Semitic in nature. It also might seem hypocritical defending an anti-Semitic comment from John Rivers while at the same time calling anyone a racist. Fair enough. But at least we on the Dissident Right are upfront with our race realism and racial advocacy. These things are, in fact, our bread and butter. We believe that race is real, that people should honestly and proudly advocate along racial lines, and that the ultimate and greatest manifestation of this is ethno-nationalism. This, we believe, will turn out best for everyone, with each race (including Jews) being able to handle their own affairs and determine their own destinies within their own borders. Maybe we’re wrong, but you can’t say we’re inconsistent or not jibing with data. We are approaching civil war levels of strife in Western Europe and the United States today, and multiculturalism is the reason for that. Ethno-nationalism for white people would be a welcome break from that.
People like John Podhoretz however engage in racism as much as anyone—both in favor of their own tribe and against people they don’t like (i.e., whites)—yet claim that they oppose racism. They are, in effect, crypto-racists masquerading as anti-racists who break their own rules whenever it’s convenient for them. J-Pod’s Twitter feed and work at Commentary Magazine is filled with denunciations of his enemies as racists, yet he never thought to aim the R-word into a mirror when he victimized Representative Steve King with a racist attack. That is the very epitome of hypocrisy. Racism for me and not for thee. I would rather endure an anti-white epithet delivered to my face by a non-white than have to deal with snide insinuations from people like John Podhoretz who are anything but what they say they are. At least in the former case, I can respect a person for their candor . . . even I respond in kind.
A recent scientific discovery reveals another angle from which we can exonerate Rivers’ comment, namely that the current Ashkenazi Jewish population is no more than 800 years old and sprang from a mere 350 people. Here is an interesting tidbit from an article describing the study’s findings:
Middle East Group and founding European group’s created population produced incestuous unions, which creates a greater likelihood that recessive genes will be expressed. According to the study, Ashkenazi Jews are linked with about 19 genetic disorders, which include Tay-Sachs disease and some forms of breast and ovarian cancers.
So, whom exactly is John Podhoretz calling inbred again? And where does he get the unadulterated gall to do so? This discovery was made in 2014, so it seems he should have known about the particular glass house before deciding to hurl stones at people. Either he didn’t, or did and didn’t care. Either way, it looks real bad for him.
Perhaps the most persuasive and, I would say, critical defense of John Rivers comes from the vantage point of self-defense: one culture—or race—defending against incursions from another culture—or race. Viktor Orbán made the perfectly justified statement that diversity often leads to lower standards of living. Implied here is a lower standard of living for whites. Presumably, standards of living have increased for the African and Middle Eastern heathens who are currently occupying and colonizing large swaths of European and American real estate. But from the perspective of a white person who is being victimized by this immigrant invasion, that shouldn’t really make a difference, should it? No-go zones, urban rioting, skyrocketing crime, grooming gangs, mass incidents of rape, Sharia courts, to say nothing of the taxpayer expense required to house and care for all these people . . . is diversity really worth all that? Representative King states the obvious: diversity is not a strength. Diversity leads to the chaos and decline that we are seeing in Europe now.
Now, if someone disagrees with this, fine. If someone wishes to argue, fine. But that is not what J-Pod did. No, he responded with a nasty, racist ad hominem, the implication of which is that diversity, especially the kind Viktor Orbán was discussing, is good. In other words, he supports the Islamic takeover of Europe and the non-white takeover of the United States. He supports the ultimate minority status of whites in their own homelands. He wants white people to lose the culture wars.
We have a word for such a person: it is ‘enemy.’ John Podhoretz and his ilk are the enemy of white people everywhere. And unless he recants, apologizes, and moves to Israel as an honest Jew, he should be treated as an enemy every time he rears his ugly face in public and farts in the direction of white people. Within the context of the simmering-yet-still-cold culture wars, this means at the very least identification. If you have any survival instincts at all, it makes sense to point your finger at the person coming after you. If a Hatfield were to wander onto property owned by a McCoy, the first thing a McCoy should say upon seeing the interloper is, “Look! A Hatfield!” This is a perfectly natural and healthy response, and was exactly what John Rivers did when he pointed at J-Pod’s ugly mug and said, “look at the fucking Jew.”
I hope by this I can make two points clear. One, it is appropriate to bring up a person’s race when that person is advocating for the destruction of yours. Jews, as a small yet influential minority, benefit at least in the short term from multiculturalism in the West. As Kevin MacDonald has pointed out in Culture of Critique, weakening the white majority in white homelands by importing as many non-whites as possible makes Jews feel more comfortable and secure as a minority in white countries (even as it makes the white majority less comfortable and secure at the same time). Jews, even the conservative ones like J-Pod, have shown no desire to slow down this diversification process that has been going on since 1965. Further, it is highly doubtful that this anti-white racism is limited to J-Pod only. If he is going to blather on about it on Twitter for the world to see, one can safely assume that his largely Jewish readership tolerates this form of bigotry. Therefore, unless a Jewish person strenuously avers the opposite of what Podhoretz is calling for in this instance (or rubber stamps the assertions of people like King and Orbán), whites must then assume that he has at least some sympathy for our enemies. And how is that not the same as being an enemy per se?
My second point is mainly for my Jewish readers, regardless of whether you are Dissident Right curious or a closeted white advocate or even a liberal doing opposition research. It is nothing personal and I am not trying to be offensive, but this is why anti-Semitism persists. In the realm of politics you can see how diaspora Jews like John Podhoretz are behaving like villains these days, can’t you?
Swedish version: http://altright.se/2018/03/29/darfor-finns-antisemitism/
33 Comments
An antisemite is NOT someone who hates jews…..
An antisemite is someone the Jews hate.
An “anti-Semite” is one who understands the Jews (all their tricks and crimes throughout history) and therefore is feared and hated by the Jews. Jews can thrive as destructive parasites only as long as they are not recognized as such. The “awakened Goy” is their greatest nightmare.
Hypocrisy is the jews’ most blaring trait. This is also why the hebrew word “chutzpah” has no real translative counterpart in any other goy tongue. Their brazenness is detestable and yes, the main fuel for “anti-semitism” the world over.
While hypocrisy is a vice common to mankind, there’s something about Jewish hypocrisy that’s somehow different, and I’m not sure how to best characterize it. Perhaps one could say that hypocrisy is a vice among the goyim and a weapon among the Jews. Jewish hypocrisy goes far beyond normal hypocrisy. It’s systematized and weaponized.
George Orwell’s concept of “doublethink” captures some of the character of Jewish hypocrisy:
“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. . . .
“All past oligarchies have fallen from power either because they ossified or because they grew soft. . . . They fell, that is to say, either through consciousness or through unconsciousness. It is the achievement of the Party to have produced a system of thought in which both conditions can exist simultaneously. . . . If one is to rule, and to continue ruling, one must be able to dislocate the sense of reality. . . .
“It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. . . . This peculiar linking-together of opposites — knowledge with ignorance, cynicism with fanaticism — is one of the chief distinguishing marks of Oceanic society. The official ideology abounds with contradictions even when there is no practical reason for them. Thus, the Party rejects and vilifies every principle for which the Socialist movement originally stood, and it chooses to do this in the name of Socialism. It preaches a contempt for the working class unexampled for centuries past, and it dresses its members in a uniform which was at one time peculiar to manual workers and was adopted for that reason. It systematically undermines the solidarity of the family, and it calls its leader by a name which is a direct appeal to the sentiment of family loyalty. Even the names of the four Ministries by which we are governed exhibit a sort of impudence in their deliberate reversal of the facts. The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy; they are deliberate exercises in doublethink. For it is only by reconciling contradictions that power can be retained indefinitely.
“. . . if the High, as we have called them, are to keep their places permanently — then the prevailing mental condition must be controlled insanity.”
The Jews “dislocate the sense of reality” and impose a condition of “controlled insanity” for themselves and against their hosts.
It’s quite simple. They don’t consider us human.
We have different moral standards for dogs and cattle, no?
All non-Jews are “cattle” to them. It so says in the Talmud. The Kabbalah teaches that only Jews have human souls. Gentiles have only animal souls. You cannot expect moral behavior of people with such ideas.
One of the translations of Chutzpah is impudence (“shamelessness”) : Chutzpah, also hutzpah, 1892, from Yiddish khutspe “impudence, gall.” from Hebrew hutspah. The classic definition is that given by Leo Rosten: “that quality enshrined in a man who, having killed his mother and father, throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.” http://www.dictionary.com/browse/chutzpah
“My second point is mainly for my Jewish readers, regardless of whether you are Dissident Right curious or a closeted white advocate or even a liberal doing opposition research. It is nothing personal and I am not trying to be offensive, but this is why anti-Semitism persists. In the realm of politics you can see how diaspora Jews like John Podhoretz are behaving like villains these days, can’t you?”
Indeed. I’ve had it in my head to write a little something called “A Jewish Defense of Anti-Semitism”, but it’s been slipping my mind. In short, the vocal majority of Jews act so irritatingly and display such reprehensible attitudes – publicly and privately – that I’d rather see a “tempered” anti-Semitism now than see Jewish perfidy continue without consequence until, as Johnny Cash might say, the man comes around. Because he will. As I frequently tell Jewish acquaintances, if there is another Holocaust, it will be entirely of their doing (I don’t get too into the genesis of the first one… I once tried, but mouths fell open and I was practically kicked out of the apartment). So, yes – I like to see (((them))) named and exposed where relevant. I would like to see a general boycott of Hollywood coupled with some Semitic realism. And I’d like to see the fanatical AIPAC supporters exposed as the dual nationalists that they are. Etc.
That said, I would not conclude this based on a tweet here or there. Podhoretz can tweet whatever he wants, but statistically, it would be unreasonable to extrapolate from a few tweeters to the entire Jewish community – as with any community. Not a defense; just my hard science background coming out, haha. Perhaps some statistical data about Jewish attitudes exist…?
‘it would be unreasonable to extrapolate from a few tweeters to the entire Jewish community’
That did occur to me. But this is J-Pod, the editor of Commentary. I agree we cannot extrapolate to the entire Jewish community. But if J-Pod feels comfortable using anti-white slurs against whites who *never* resort to anti-Jewish slurs, then we would have to assume a good chunk of his readership does too, that is, those Jews who skew libertarian rather than liberal but still cling to the double standard of ethnocentrism for me and not for thee.
But yes, in the broader sense you are correct. And your earlier point of ‘Semitic realism’ saving lives in the long run is well taken.
Even lefties that are aware of the bad behavior of Israel are utterly blind to the villainy of the diaspora Jews.
My programming still makes me cuck and countersignal on the JQ.
How any sane white person can see that tweet and not turn inside is beyond me. I suspect the number of said whites gets fewer and fewer with every recklessly hypocritical post. Keep ’em coming, John.
He didn’t call him a kike, yid, heeb, Christ-killer, or other slur. But to a Jew, being identified as Jewish is the equivalent of such (as we’re all aware thanks to one Mr. Goebbels). That such a reply takes aback even white nationalists – and I agree it at first does come across as in bad taste – demonstrates the success to which Jews have molded public discourse in their favor in order to evade scrutiny. It’s sobering that even we still have some Jews in our brains that need to be evicted, so thorough is the brainwashing.
I’m glad you turned Podhoretz’ barb against him. It seems to be a favorite tactic of the Jews (and leftists) to accuse others of the things they themselves are guilty of. For example, the WW2 genocide accusations can be seen as Soviet Jews covering their asses for their own purges. Ditto for Hollywood depictions of the Atlantic slave trade. Nationalists are the epitome of evil, so long as they’re not Israelis. And it is a common trope to characterize fundamentalist Christians and Muslims as complete whackos, yet say the same about Orthodox Jews and you’re an anti-semite!
Needless to say, I agree it is high time we call them out on their hypocrisy and to underline the hostile alien motives lurking just underneath the surface.
Great reply but that should have been Dr. Goebbels. Hate to be a bit of a stickler but part of (((their))) shtick is how uneducated we are. Joseph Goebbels earned a PhD and should be referred to as a doctor.
… it is high time we call them out on their hypocrisy …
I’ll say. Has anyone ever noted that it is the jews who created the biblical fairy tales:
1) burning (and talking) bush
2) talking snake
3) ark holding two of each animal but no supply ships to feed this behemoth zoo during flood
4) woman created by making man fall asleep and removing one of his ribs (no narcotics for pain?)
5) parting water (defying gravity) with a wooden stick?
Yet it is Christians (and let’s be honest read that as: WHite Gentiles) who are being currently lampooned for these claims. And it is the jews, at heart, who are the ring leaders of this ridicule for believing these old testament tales.
Unbelievable hypocrisy. And no Gentiles (Christian or otherwise) say a word about the double standard; testimony to the power the jews have imposed on the goyim to sit silent and put up with it.
Regarding “WW2 genocide accusations can be seen as Soviet Jews covering their asses for their own purges” — perhaps. Certainly plausible! Or maybe this —
“The true basis for the Nuremburg Trial, the one which no one has ever dared point out . . . is the spectacle of the ruins, it is the panic of the victors. It is necessary that the others be in the wrong. It is necessary, for if, by chance, they had not been monsters, how would the victors bear the weight of all those destroyed cities, and those thousands of phosphorus bombs?” — Maurice Bardeche
In The Psychology of Jingoism (London: Grant Richards, 1901), the English economist J. A. Hobson wrote (pp. 76-77):
“The bankruptcy of national humour is . . . best exhibited in two convictions obstinately planted in the Jingo mind. The first is a general belief in the ‘badness’ of the Boer, of such sort that, when an inventive press produces any new specific but unsupported charge, as of shooting prisoners, poisoning wells, firing on ambulances, we know that it is true, because it is just the sort of thing ‘the wicked Boer would do.’
“‘Never forget to slander those you have wronged.’ This self-protective instinct in a nation which has reached a certain state in the evolution of morals is aptly illustrated by Mr. Gilbert Murray in the following fable:–
“‘Consider the fowls of the air. A very pretty small bird, the great Tit, when hungry, will lift up its beak, split open its brother’s head, and proceed to eat his brains. It might be satisfied, think you? Not at all! It has a moral nature, you must please to remember, which demands to be satisfied as well as the physical. When it has finished its brother’s brains, it first gets very angry and pecks the dead body; then it flies off to a tree and exults. What is it angry with, and why does it exult? It is angry with the profound wickedness of that brother, in consequence of which it was obliged to kill him; it exults in the thought of its own courage, firmness, justice, moderation, generosity, and domestic sweetness.'”
Make them live up to the words used by one of their own about his people…”we are the destroyers, we want a planet of our own.”…… When I was younger, I couldn’t understand the loathing that the Germans, Poles and Lithuanians had for the Jews. Now, believe me, I completely understand. Red pilled for a while now.
Exactly the same nonsense about “inbreeding” said German Politician Wolfgang Schäuble to a big newspaper in 2016. And even Head of Evangelic Church Margot Käsmann metioned someting simular this year. The logical mistake is, that this Multikulti people invade our country, but normaly (thanks God) there is no mixing of gens. Or does anyone know a Mohammedan who married a white person? Of cause they stick together. They want the money and the country, but not us. So the invasion of blacks and mohammedans to Europe will not help with the assumed inbreeding problem.
John Podhoretz is not a “conservative” by any rational system of measurement. As with most neocons, his conservatism on particular cultural issues is purely tactical, and designed for no other reason than to garner actual conservative support for a larger universalist and anti-Western agenda.
Any rightist movement that does not fall in line with this overall agenda faces ferocious attack from people like Podhoretz, and from the neocon movement in general. Only a few stupid RINO Republicans don’t realize this truth.
Science bases its judgements on the evidence provided by experiments. A theory that can not be supported in practice is discarded. Ideological thinking is of different order. In spite of contradictory results that flow from the application of a theory in practice, it is stubbornly justified and upheld. The ideologue is wedded to his believes regardless of logic, fact and evidence. People can adduce specious arguments to justify unwise, absurd behavior. This type of thinking is called rationalization.
You will never get a Jew to part with his ideology, science is white men’s domain.
This book covers the issue, and the author advocates for genetic screening of Jews marrying other Jews, and exogamy to add to the Jewish gene pool. I urge people to read it. The fact is, Jews are inbred and seem to transfer their inbred guilt to the rural gentiles they’re hostile towards.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Genetic_disorders_among_the_Jewish_peopl.html?id=yWxrAAAAMAAJ
The more I’ve thought about race, ethnicity and the JQ, the more I wonder if we are approaching this from the correct angle.
We are seeking to tackle the JQ through our own hywhite lens, i.e with a powerful sense of morality, reason, fact vs fiction and justice, maintaining this assumption that somewhere our enemies, being smart as they are, ‘know’ what we know deep down. That they’re just suppressing the same truth we take for granted for their own ends, and that therefore they could somehow be shamed into admitting their own hypocrisy, double standards and hatred.
But perhaps Jews on average, see and feel the world rather differently to us on a more neurological level which makes this difficult.
We see Jews like Podhoretz piously hacking away at our own ethnic needs and sense of identity while they remain immune to any sense of reality, shame or doubt about their own positions. They get to make an endless stream of venomous rhetorical shots, thrown from apparently respectable or prestigious positions in the media and academia to dissolve any sense of white group identity.
What would be a weak spot for us – making a line of argument against an opponent, while ignoring where the same argument is more applicable or damaging to us, is not ‘felt’ for them. And when it’s pointed out to them, their behavior doesn’t change.
So perhaps a significant proportion of Jews, despite traits like high IQ, simply lack the mental apparatus that facilitate shame, empathy and self-reflection as we understand it, so they can never actually perceive or respond to their own double standards, or are at least far more resistant to doing so.
The net effect of this is that they get to hack away at us for free, with no moral burden, while we constantly scramble to justify our ourselves.
Dealing with a group resistant to reasonably accepting its own flaws makes me think that some of the more ‘hardcore’ trolling aimed at Jews on social media, while distasteful to many of us, may actually have been a more appropriate tactic, albeit not a decisive one, though the opportunities for that would seem to be diminishing.
Of course it could be that Jews have achieved such a position of privilege in our societies that they simply don’t care about the consequences and feel insulated to them, but as white elites are easily capable of being shamed, it would seem to be a bit more than that, that there are key cognitive and emotional traits we take for granted but that are simply not developed in Jews overall, despite their high IQ.
Or it could just be that the reason Jews are so dismissive to criticisms of Jewish behavior is because they really do hate us that much.
Vagrant Rightist, you ask some questions that are very difficult to answer. Yes, there are neurological differences. Nicholas Wade in a Troublesome Inheritance has a chapter on the Ashkenazim. Genetically they are distinct too. As for whether they hate us, I would say that for a few evil individuals, that is true. But for most of them, it’s fear. I will write an article one day about their ‘diaspora mentality’ which prevents them from working the land and establishing real roots in gentile nations. This mentality also prevents them from being responsible for their own self-defense, always appealing to the state for their security. There are exceptions, but those exceptions tend to move to Israel. But in general, nationalistic, heavily-armed, traditionalist, race-realist white people scare them silly. I imagine this is the source for all our troubles with them.
I cannot comprehend how normies cannot see the Jew for who he is. Granted, when I was younger I could not even really identify one unless they were obviously Jewish or said they were. But when I moved to the States and got to know them, even before being political (oh what a naive and simple time!) they truly repulsed me. I could not pinpoint what it was but they simply repulsed me. It was easier to swallow the JQ red pill than the race pill, if I am to be honest. I have met really nice non whites but I have never known a good Jew.
Hi Mia,
I have met a few believe it or not. One of them actually complimented me on how much he appreciated this article. But yes, I have felt what you feel. I have to keep some of those emotions in check while I write in order to strive for objectivity.
The same magic that turned Pinocchio into a real boy turned a happy merchant meme into J-Pod.
Hypocrisy is to Goys as alcohol is to an Alkie, while hypocrisy is to Judaism as beer is to a brewer.
Indeed hypocrisy (double ethnic standards) is not only condoned in Jewish culture, it is actively cultivated, in fact it is the very essence of their survival-cum-supremacy strategy. Therefore trying to “shame” the Jews by pointing out their hypocrisy is wholly in vain. It works only to “red pill” Gentiles about the Jews, but for that purpose it should be profusely used.
It would be as if someone said Israel should take in gentiles in order to prevent inbreeding.
Great article. These are basic truths.
Thanks
“Before I even had a chance to read J-Pod’s tweet, my normie instincts kicked in, and I thought to myself, “My, that was pretty nasty, wasn’t it?” Like many of us, I was neither born with the red pill, nor did I have it thrust upon me.”
Allow me to correct you here. Those are not instincts, that’s Pavlovian conditioning. Even the most red-pilled hardcore National Socialists feel this, because we all grew up in the West, in lands where every media company and every school had its agenda defined by a very small clique. No, friend, it was the blue pill that was thrust upon us. Jews mentally raped us all as tiny children. Pro-Jew psychological conditioning, blended with indoctrination into being charitable Christians, has programmed us all against our own self-interest.
A key conclusion: “They are, in effect, crypto-racists masquerading as anti-racists who break their own rules whenever it’s convenient for them”.
I wouldn’t even call it “breaking their own rules”. There are the own rules, which are not broken at all, but followed meticulously. And there are rules made for third parties. What else is chosenness, if not immanent racism at its finest?